Over 100 activists, including 20 speakers on five panels, from the labor, anti-racist, peace, women's, and socialist movements met to talk about 'Building A Progressive Majority' on Saturday, December 10 at the SEIU 1199 meeting hall in New York City. The event was sponsored and organized by The Committees of Correspondence Education Fund.

Although difficult 'how to do it' questions remain, attendees agreed with Leslie Cagan, United for Peace and Justice(UFPJ) coordinator, that the Left must make every effort to help build a broad Left/Center coalition that connects issues of peace and justice. Cagan underscored that this means mobilizing Left forces and taking Center voices seriously.

Carl Bloice, freelance journalist and member of the National Executive Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS), agreed that Left/Center unity is a necessity to fight war, racism, and poverty.

He stressed that three pitfalls needed to be avoided. First, Left and progressive activists should not forget that the system is in crisis because of the growing anger and activism of masses of people. (Frances Fox Piven, Professor, City University of New York, on the same panel documented the connection between mass protest and progressive public policy in the history of the United States).Second, activists must avoid factionalism on issues and ideology. And third, progressives must be prepared to challenge the "2006 betrayal of the Democrats," that is they must reject the Democratic Leadership Council Democrats who embrace the war in Iraq and cuts in social spending.

Fighting racism and white supremacy is central to the possibility of creating a progressive majority, added Damu Smith, Black Voices for Peace. Addressing the racist corporate/government response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina 'is a litmus test for the progressive movement.' If there is to be a movement, it must incorporate the efforts of grassroots groups from the Gulf region who are trying to regain control of their lives and property from government. 'Katrina did not hit New Orleans', Smith said, 'FEMA hit New Orleans.' Reinforcing Smith, Chuck Turner, Boston City Councilman, issued a challenge to the peace movement to address the connections between the military-industrial complex and the lack of resources for the African American community.

Manning Marable, Professor, Columbia University, referred to the 'New Racial Domain,' a global political economy driven by transnational capitalism and state- enforced neo-liberal policies that rests 'on mass unemployment, mass incarceration, and mass disenfranchisement.' Each of these is related to the other two. Millions of dispossessed poor and people of color at home and abroad are increasingly marginalized at the same time that global capital seeks to privatize every institution and natural resource in the service of profit.

Elizabeth Rothschild, National Organizer, Young Democratic Socialists, also highlighted the relationship between struggling against racism and building a progressive majority. In addition, she related capitalism to racism, sexism, and the threat to democracy. 'Capitalism is an undemocratic global system of power distribution that reinforces and reproduces and exacerbates racism and sexism.' Democracy 'can only be attained when we challenge capitalist production- because democracy cannot be had in a system which requires massive poverty.' She outlined the ways in which the system was tormenting youth:college costs are rising, student loans are declining, jobs are scarce for youth at all educational levels, and wages are low. For thousands of youth, military service, is the only remaining option.

The importance of rebuilding a trade union movement that comes from the grassroots was emphasized by Charles Ensley, President, Social Service Employees Union, Local 371, AFSCME and Bill Henning, Vice President, Communications Workers of America, Local 1180. Henning spoke of the influence of United States Labor Against the War (USLAW) on the recently endorsed AFL-CIO resolution opposing the Iraq war. Ensley made it clear that labor has resources, human and financial, to participate in a progressive coalition.

Michael Honey Professor and labor historian, connected the anti-racist movement of the 1960s to poor and working class movements of that day. He recalled that Dr. King was marching in solidarity with Memphis sanitation workers at the time when he was assassinated. The assassination occurred just days before the start of the Poor People's Campaign mobilization in Washington D.C. Honey suggested that a progressive majority today can build on the 1960s tradition, linking class, race, and gender.

In an inspiring keynote address, Amy Goodman, host and producer of Democracy Now, described the pain and suffering of Iraqi's caused by the war and the fate of victims of the Gulf Coast hurricane. She compared the realities on the ground with the character of media coverage of these events. She credited some journalists with more accurate coverage of Hurricane Katrina compared with the pro-U.S. military coverage in Iraq.

The difference, she suggested, resulted from the fact that journalists were 'embedded' in Iraq and somewhat independent of government and military control in Louisiana and Mississippi. She insisted that progressives should work to build an independent media.

In the closing session, Charlene Mitchell, Co-Chair, CCDS, talked about the need for Left dialogue and action in this period of economic and political crisis. She said that people are angry and activists from the labor, anti-racist, peace, and socialist movements have an obligation to come together to help build a progressive movement based on an understanding of the connections between class, race, and gender.. The Symposium was important to begin the conversation, she suggested. Now it was time to move toward activism.

Envisioning some next steps, Joseph Wilson, Professor and Director, Center for Worker Education, CUNY, recommended that a national convention be called to launch the creation of a new national progressive coalition. He called for energies to be channeled toward the construction of radical think tanks to generate ideas for progressive social change. Finally, he endorsed the idea of recreating a progressive media, print and electronic, to better inform potential participants in a new progressive majority.

Symposium participants left energized by the presentations and dialogue, and expressed their support for the building of a 'new progressive coalition." ___

Harry Targ is a Professor in the Department of Political Science, Purdue University

This call for a 'Left-Center' grand coalition - showcased at this event couldn't have anything to do with the current negotiations between UFPJ, USLAW, NOW, MoveON.org, PDA and other liberal groups around a national mobilization on April 29th - location to be announced? Or in anticipation of the 2006 election cycle?

The CP/COC and social democratic crowd have been hawking the same snake oil for the past 60 years. A lot of good it has done us. It has little to do, however, with progressive politics and more to do with resting $$$ from liberal capitalist foundations. Pay them no heed.

Do you really think people are in this for the $$$, RN? From 'liberal capitalist foundations' or anywhere else? Good grief, what have you been smoking? If anyone wants to make a buck and has any talent at all for anything, the last and hardest place to do it is on the left. Besides, the 5O1C3 tax laws are biased towards foundations giving money to anarchist and other non-electoral political groups, not those who want to elect candidate or pass specific pieces of legislation.

Yes they are

Dec 30, 2005 07:15AM EST

I don't smoke

The bucks may not be the same as if they were successful bankers, but honestly who would hire someone like Leslie Cagan? She really has no marketable skills or talents outside of what she does (as a professional waster of time and energy).

The key thing in all of this though is what she represents. That is, the total waste of time and energy those who don't know any better will expend when they get involved with her. She is there not to bring about change or challenge to the "system" but to divert from all such efforts.

Well, let's see, when's the last time you were in charge pulling together a national coalition of over 1000 groups, or getting nearly 500,000 marching in the streets on NYC? Leslie Cagan's a fine human being with a range of valuable organizing skills widely recognized by multitudes, save for a few cranks, and really needs no defense from me. I'm sure she's made mistakes, but who hasn't? We need more like her. If you're able, you could try to critique her political views or strategy, if its not to strenuous for you, rather than tossing off personal attacks.

&quot;Pulling together 500,000 human beings&quot;

Dec 30, 2005 01:44PM EST

Getting to the Heart of It

The problem Carl is you confuse an amorphous crowd with placards that hangs an area of a city for a day with a focused or well directed organization. That in itself is the core of the problem. But to add to it, she is both corrupt and her personality and politics stink, (as do yours).

No doubt you and her will continue to do what you are doing, but we'll be damned if we participate in the charade. 50 years of standing in place is just too long. Life is too short for the likes of both her and you.

A 'focused or well directed organization' or an 'amorphous crowd'? I don't confuse them at all. I just don't put them in opposition to each other or substitute one for the other, as you seem to be doing here.

In any case, your choice words hints at a bit of disdain for the masses who turned out that day -- and were quite happy that UFPJ organized the event.

I'm all for a 'focused and well-directed organization,' too, on several levels. If you want to hook up with one of them, go to www.solidarityeconomy.org and read the article, 'Where to Begin?'

No its not disdain to or for the &quot;masses&quot;

Dec 30, 2005 07:21PM EST

Retirement Now

its disdain for the cheap opportunists who misuse and abuse our goodwill to secure themselves a stipend or a paycheck.

So, RN, would you have the people working fulltime for your "focused" organizations not be paid?

That certainly cuts the pool down a bit, leaving work of this sort to the relatively wealthy, or spouses or partners wealthy enough to take up the slack for them. It certainly cuts out anyone low-to-moderate income with family responsibilities, even if they could beg or hustle their own support. So the ultrademocratic 'no stipends or salaries' really ends up promoting elitism or disorganization, doesn't it?

Besides, everyone knows anyone making these 'stipends' could make at least twice as much in the private sector without even breathing hard. I've been active on the left for over 40 years, and, with the exception of some trade union officials, I have yet to meet anyone who was in it for the money. Just the reverse; it usually costs them financially, which they write off as their contribution to the common good.

So we're back to your inability to make a political critique...

That Would Be Nice (for a start)

Dec 30, 2005 09:51PM EST

Retirement Now

There are many, who are not "wealthy" or close to being "wealthy", who do service without compensation for their time. As to diminishing the pool of eligible and competent persons, labors of love are their own reward. I say this from personal experience-- so please save us the crap about personal naivity. The problem Carl is that some see public service as a racket, despite protestations to the contrary.

Trust in the future. Crisis may bring out the worst in some, but it also brings out the best in many others.

Between Iraq and a hard place.

Dec 31, 2005 01:08AM EST

loren

Taken a good look at UFPJ's budget recently, Carl. Not quite the impoverished NGO hustling church basement chicken dinners to make the rent money. Face it, Cagan has been a professional movement maven for literally decades and her real gift has been to effortlessly glide from one coaltion to another without skipping a heart beat, a grant opportunity - or a meal. Meanwhile she continues to pump out the same old Pop Front line - which she salvaged from the wreckage of the CPUSA-COC split. A perspective that remains essentially unchanged since the heady days of Earl Browder.

Watch carefully as UFPJ sidles up to Win without War, NOW, USLAW, PDA and jettisons the demand for immediate withdrawal from Iraq to a phased withdrawal/redeployment plan more acceptable to the Democratic Party politicans they hope to court and their newfound Left/Center coalition partners.. The only remaining task is to craft the spin that will make this turn to the right palatable to their base. Title this - Anybody but Bush redux - this time with gusto.

The sorry thing in all of this is...

Dec 31, 2005 02:55AM EST

Retirement Now

all the wasted effort and time by those of goodwill, because of the likes of slimy users such as Leslie Cagan.

Win Without War is an office in DC with no troops on the ground, at least in Chicago, so I'm not that concerned about them.

But as for the others, CAWI, our local UFPJ affiliate, has already been working with their local equivalents of here in Chicago for some time. It's worked out fine, and it hasn't changed our 'Out Now' stance one bit. If we're going to form alliances with these guys -- and we need more of them, not less -- it won't be by changing 'Out Now' as our stand. What would be the point? These folks may want to initiate something of their own under something less than 'Out Now.' In that event, we'll deal with it, case by case, but keeping our own views upfront and intact.

Some folks never seem to get it about the strategy and tactics of the united front. It's not mainly a way of uniting those who agree with you. You're already united. It's a way of working with and mobilizing those who don't agree with you, but still want to achieve a common aim.

Anybody But Bush Redux? We're already talking in Illinois about 2006, taking inventory of all the politicians statewide, then helping to defeat the 10 most pro-war and electing or defending the 10 most antiwar. UFPJ, unfortunately, has been too hamstrung by its left wing to be of much help on electoral matters, at least from our perspective. Do you plan on boycotting or abstaining in 2006? Who does that help?

I think UFPJ does remarkably well on a piss-poor budget for its scope. If anything, they're underfunded. You sound like a Republican social programs slasher. If we're going to end this war, we're going to have to bring this movement and its organizations truly to scale -- and that requires funding them and paying those who work for them. I have nothing against groups with all volunteers -- goodness, I give enough time and energy to them myself. but we need to move beyond primitive forms of organization, not finding rhetoric to 'celebrate' our relative weaknesses. Again, who does that help?

As for the ongoing invective about Leslie, I'll just take it as either sour grapes or a character flaw in the mindset of those flinging it.

Let's clear up a couple of misconceptions, Carl. If you're just now thinking about the 2006 election, then you're not thinking. Primary candidates who have not filed to date are out, and surely in big cities like NYC and Chicago, you're not just talking about a Demican vs. Republicrat strategy for the fall general elections, since there are a plethora of pro-war Democratic Party candidates who need to be challenged, spanked and where possible run out of office. You talk a great came about electoral sector engagement, but in Illinois there is a crucial primary race for the retiring fascist Henry Hyde's seat, where DLC operative Rahm Emanuel has conspired with senatorial liberal darlings Barak Obama and Dick Durbin to run a legless vet who is also more prowar/more pro-business class against the totally antiwar/less probusiness class candidate, Christine Cegelis, who won the primary last year against the Dem party-backed boy and won 44% in the general against Hyde. Where's CAWI on this race? Where, for that matter, are operatives (and their funding sources) in projects like Win Without War?

We sure can't count on other Dem congresspeople to back an openly progressive anti-war candidate like Cegelis. To whit: another liberal darling and avowed ally of your outfit, Jan Schakowsky, has taken a powder on publicly pronouncing on this race, and since she's cut a deal with Emanuel for his backing in a congressional party leadership race (against Hillary Clinton's endorsed candidate), we can also probably expect her to send people to Hyde's district to work AGAINST Cegelis in the primary. Of course, none of the other Chicago Dem reps have extended public support to Cegelis either, given the enormous trepidation about the money and influence that Clinton apologist Rahm Emanuel wields. Such is the treachery of party politics. Whatever. Will CAWI and you put principle before base party politics and back Cegelis? Inquiring minds want to know.

Why do I ask this question here? Because outsider Cegelis' race is an important litmus test for the electorally engaged (some would say challenged) peace movement in this country. Namely, will we cowtow to the 'pragmatic' tendencies in Win Without War, MoveOn, et al, that gave us the lameass 'anybody but Bush' electoral strategy, or will we actually offer voters what they really want -- candidates prepared to stand on principle instead of marching to the 'lesser of two evils and therefore still evil' lines of electoral 'expediency'.

Truth in Advertising

Dec 31, 2005 02:57PM EST

marat

Davidson writes : "UFPJ, unfortunately, has been too hamstrung by its left wing to be of much help on electoral matters, at least from our perspective."

And what exactly is your prospective, Carl? Beyond the usual bromides about remaining flexible and pragmatic in pursuing the Center-Left alliance that COCDS - your own outfit, and UFPJ have embraced. As you noted in a running thread on the Chicago IMC , local groups associated with your antiwar coalition organized a series of Congressional office visits earlier in Illinois this December to acertain the views of their congressional reps and engage in a little lobbying. Yet you've commented little on what these meetings produced - or what those lobbying these Congresspeople asked for.

Support for immediate withdrawal - a position you insist your group will hold fast to? Support for Murtha/Pelosi? - which is the direction UFPJ is taking?. It's true that support for the Murtha/ Pelosi proposal - which can be more accurately described as a "redeployment over the horizon and Iraqization" scheme aimed at reducing US casualities - has picked up steam among those Democratic politicians unnerved by the growth of antiwar sentiment among their constituents. But the Democratic leadership, hopelessly compromised by their earlier support of the war, remains committed to trying to prevent the war in Iraq from erupting as a key campaign issue in the next election cycle, irregardless of what specific formula is advanced by nominally antiwar Congressional reps.. Hence Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel's pronouncement that the Democratic Party will make its position known when the "time is right" -- ideally after the primaries. And his efforts to derail the campaign of Christine Cegelis, the antiwar candidate for Congress in the 6th District. Under the circumstances, Geovanis's query about CAWI's support - or lack of - for the Cegelis campaign in Illinois is right on point.

Indeed, in the only House vote ever taken to date on a Out Now! resolution - one proposed by the Republicans as a tactic to sandbag Murtha, only three Congresspeople voted their conscience in favor of immediate withdrawal. None of these were from Chicago (Kudost o Rep Serrano from NYC) -- even after several years of lobbying, pleading, petitions, town meetings, peace voter registration drives, Chicago city council resolutions and appeals from local antiwar groups.

Is CAWI, CCCDS, or UFPJ prepared to take a page from the Code PINK playbook and grassroots antiwar groups across the country and confront Democratic Party pro war politicians --and those liberals who continue to waffle on the war? In the streets if necessary? Or back candidates - progressives, independents, Greens ect, who challenge them? Or will they opt for a strategy of 'constructive engagement' in order to avoid ruffling feathers of their perspective allies who are joined at the hip to the Democrats in this new Left Center alliance? From the article above, and Davidson's posts here, it's hard to tell.

CAWI has been with Cegelis since before you heard of her, including this upcoming primary. Our ally in her district, DAWN, has a good number of folks in the campaign. And still, she needs to be stiffened a bit on the war, lately just using Murtha as cover.

Raum Emanuel, who has delusions about being the next House Speaker, is our favorite Dem for 1984-style '5 minute hate sessions,' and we're plotting to have someone run against him.

I can't understand why you even think this is controversial, unless it's because Raum Emanuel has a good shot at winning his corrupt and cynical ploy. Every visit we've had with him confirms to almost all folks that he's unmovable, especially by grassroots progressives, because he has all the national DLC money and clout to deploy, and especially to use to crush the left wing of his party.

But yes, we're thinking main statewide and Fall 2006 for selected campaigns. I don't know if we'll find a viable candidate to serve as a thorn in Emanuel's hide and even less that we could defeat him, but it would be worth causing him some grief any way we can.

We understand very well that there are six or seven clusters among Democratic officials on the war -- one you could call 'out now', two definitely prowar and pro-'victory,' and others waffling, but in our direction. All the more reason to stand firm on 'Out Now' -- otherwise we lose any pull we have, which you get by representing your base and which you lose by kissing the butts of the elites. We're in this, after all, to end the war.

As for UFPJ and electoral options, you know that our proposals presented at their nation gatherings were defeated. While we had substantial interest, they couldn't get over the two-thirds barrier, blocked mainly by the Trotskyists and anarchist trends.

Fortunately, we have reached an era where reformism has become so widely discredited that there is almost ZERO chance of this scheme even getting off the ground.

Only a few innocents could possibly be seduced by this ancient scam...and innocence is in increasingly short supply in the "age of the internet".

A half-century ago, reformism LOOKED PLAUSIBLE...looked like a PRACTICAL way to "change things" in a "progressive direction".

Does anyone with any common sense think that NOW?

With any luck, this will be the "last hurrah" for a bunch of mostly well-meaning people who probably should have retired after Reagan was elected.

The "Age of Reform" is OVER.

When the present "ice age" of reaction begins to crack, what will emerge, in my opinion, is a new "AGE OF REVOLUTION".

And reformism (all versions) will be about as relevant as the weather on Pluto.

Just the facts,

Jan 01, 2006 04:49PM EST

marat

Interesting comment Carl. Since the filing deadline for the Illinois General Primary expired on Dec. 19th, 2005, any effort to challenge Emanuel or other prowar Democrats will have to be in the general election - which means CAWI - if it decides to - will be have to support an independent antiwar candidates for office.

But it doesn't resolve the question orginially posed: What success has your outfit had to date in persuading the Chicago Democratic congressional delegation - Jan Schakowsky, Bobby Rush, Danny Davis, Luis Gutierrez, or Jesse Jackson Jr. - to support a unambigious "Out Now' stance? Or to offer concrete support to other antiwar candidates across the state or influence their position around this demand? These questions should be fairly easy to answer.

A candid and objective assessment of these efforts to by the antiwar movment to impact the electoral area could help inform both the tactical choices and strategic orientation many anti-war activists adopt in the days and months ahead. And go a long way to answer questions about whether this type of engagement with elected officials helps to mobilize a mass movement, or is just another dead end.

IMO, both tactics and longer range organizing strategies are best evaluated by real outcomes, not spin, little devils or angels sitting on your shoulders, or liberal wishful thinking and speculation masquarading as deeper analysis. Theory tested by practice.

COC/CP to Earth-- What Year Is This?

Jan 02, 2006 10:28PM EST

DeJa Vu

It could be 1960, it could 1980. Does the the COC/CP crowd believe we think time stands still. We are on to them and their schtick. Call us sophisticated, but the old political snake oil just doesn't cut it. Time to retire.

(c) Independent Media Center. All content is free for reprint and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere,
for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted by author. IMC not for content (expand this). more...